2014 ndi 6ws fitzmier, Lundberg, Abelkop deep ocean neg privatization cp

Download 0.84 Mb.

Page	8/20
Date	28.01.2017
Size	0.84 Mb.
	#9577

1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ... 20

Current bioprospecting is limited by consensus but increased volume wrecks ecosystems – it’s on the brink
Deep-sea research has been limited so far – aff opens it up to commercial exploitation
Links – Environment Impact
Deep-ocean exploration leads to dangerous commercial exploitation – profit motive overcomes environmental considerations
Lack of regulations means the aff’s bio-prospecting causes irreversible environmental damage
Pharmaceutical exploration of the ocean is dangerous – environment and indigenous issues, lack of regulation
The aff’s bioprospecting disrupts marine ecosystems – kills biodiversity
Bioprospecting kills ocean ecosystems – foreign species, light and noise pollution
Unregulated bioprospecting leads to widespread exploitation – kills ecosystems and turns the case
Link – International Ownership/Conflict Impact

DISADS

Bioprospecting DA

UQ

Current bioprospecting activities are small-scale and limited

Current bioprospecting is limited by consensus but increased volume wrecks ecosystems – it’s on the brink

Warner 08 (Robin M., University of Wollongong, “Protecting the diversity of the depths: environmental regulation of bioprospecting and marine scientific research beyond national jurisdiction”, Ocean Yearbook 22, http://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1178&context=lawpapers)

The remote nature and extreme conditions of deep seabed environments impose automatic limitations on the numbers of scientific expeditions which can reach areas deeper than1000 metres below the surface of the ocean." Nevertheless there are now a wide array of independent public and private research institutions engaged in deep seabed research with definite physical impacts on the marine environment." Several commentators note that deep sea science has now moved from a descriptive and observational phase to a more interventionist stage which involves sampling and the installation of scientific equipment on the deep sea floor to conduct in situ experiments." A 2005 United Nations University/Institute of Advanced Studies report on Bioprospecting of Genetic Resources on the Deep Seabed describes the second American Museum of Natural History black smokers expedition to the Endeavour segment of the Juan de Fuca mid ocean ridge which removed four chimneys of several tons each from this hydrothermal vent area at a depth of 2,300 metres." Other reported impacts include the removal of benthic fauna and the introduction of alien elements such as light and noise into the deep sea environment." Some deep sea experiments have resulted in changes of water temperature and the disposal of biological material in areas different from the sampling area. Scientists are also concerned about the rising frequency of visits to hydrothermal vents and the pressure caused by concentrated observation and sampling on a few well known vent communities which have been subjected to multiple research expeditions." The absence of restrictions on access to the deep seabed has led to different research institutions proposing duplicate and incompatible scientific experiments for the same deep seabed area." While the deep sea scientists themselves have begun to impose some constraints on their research expeditions through a research reserve system which operates by consensus between scientists, amplified research of deep seabed sites in the future may require a more systematic approach where access to certain sites is controlled to reduce adverse impacts on the marine environment."

Deep-sea research has been limited so far – aff opens it up to commercial exploitation

Leary 04 (David K., “Bioprospecting and the Genetic Resources of Hydrothermal Vents on the High Seas: What is the Existing Legal Position, Where are we Heading and What are our Options?”, Macquarie Journal of International and Comparative Environmental Law 7, 2004, http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/MqJlICEnvLaw/2004/7.html#Heading58)

So far sample collection from hydrothermal vents is exclusively conducted by scientific research institutions. There are numerous national research institutions involved in research in relation to hydrothermal vents. These include the Japan Agency for Marine Earth Science and Technology (formerly the Japan Marine Science and Technology Centre) (JAMSTEC), Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific Industrial and Research Organisation (CSIRO), Institut français de recherche (IFREMER), the Korean Ocean Research and Development Institute (KORDI), the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, and the New Zealand Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences, to name but a few. Commercial interests gain access to samples collected through research collaboration with such institutions, or through national culture collections where samples are deposited by research institutions.[52] There are a number of examples of scientific research institutions, Universities, and National Culture Collections that are involved in collaborative research with industry. For example, the Frontier Research program for extremophiles at JAMSTEC collaborates with industry on the development of biotechnology from extremophiles collected by JAMSTEC through its Bioventure Centre. There is no substantiated evidence that any company has mounted their own dive (as distinct from those in collaboration with scientific research institutions) to hydrothermal vents for sample collection purposes. There is anecdotal evidence, though, that at least one company is planning its own series of dives, independent from any research institution. It is not known precisely what the purposes of these dives are or indeed whether such dives have taken place.[53]

Links – Environment Impact

Ocean exploration is too unregulated – leads to mining and fishing that destroy the environment before we know what we’re doing to it

Levitt 10 (Tom, “How deep-sea mining could destroy the 'cradle of life on earth'”, Ecologist, 10/28/10, www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/653840/how_deepsea_mining_could_destroy_the_cradle_of_life_on_earth.html)

I don’t think the project would be allowed to proceed anywhere else in the world based on such a poor analysis of risks,’ says Steiner. The USA is known to have similar deposits off the coast of Washington as has Canada but mining is not thought to be imminent. Dr Fujita suggests Nautilus is just the latest overseas mining giant to take advantage of lax regulations in the country. ‘In PNG they have a poor record of mining on land resulting in lots of poor conditions and that bad record and lack of oversight is now moving from land to sea,’ he says.   Only this week the PNG government was accused by Greenpeace of allowing rampant logging and failing to respect the rights of indigenous groups who depend on the forests. Nautilus has reportedly suggested the country would benefit by more than $200 million from the mining but Steiner says the benefits to local people or the economy of PNG were likely to be disproportionately low compared to the scale and risk of the project. ‘While the project could gross almost $1 billion USD in its 30-month lifetime, it expects to provide only $41 million in total taxes and royalties to the government, a $1.5 million development fund and a few dozen jobs at most to PNG nationals,’ he said. Prof Steiner is also acting as a science advisor to Mas Kagin, a group formed in 2008 to give a voice to coastal indigenous people in PNG oppose any commercial mining. The group says it depends on the coastal waters for their ‘livelihood, culture and way of life’ and has a right to oppose the seabed mining. In a campaign video community groupsfrom two provinces expressed their fears.   ‘When we first heard that Nautilus was going to mine the seabed using technology that had never been used anywhere else it felt as though we were becoming a science lab…and our very lives part of an experiment to test this new technology,’ it says. Nautilus conducted workshops with local villages to explain its proposals but rejected calls to set up a permanent citizens advisory council. The company also declined to respond to concerns raised in this article but has previously said it took great pride in ‘leading the mining industry into the deep ocean’.    Opening the floodgates It has estimated several billions tons of copper could be extracted from seafloor sites around the world. Dr Tyler acknowledges that the deep-sea has ‘not even had its surface scratched with what it might contribute to the economy’ but fears PNG’s decision to approve Nautilus mining plans will ‘open the floodgates’ before proper assessments have been made of the impact. China is known to be seeking to mine similar deposits in the South-West Indian Ocean. ‘Deep-sea fishing is a good example. We can ring alarm bells but there is no regulation of it. If I had my way the whole area of deep-sea would become a protected area and people who want to exploit it would have to apply to a body who can ensure that they were doing a proper environmental analysis before they were allowed to exploit it. At the moment there is no requirement at all and we end up looking at the damage done,’ he says. Steiner agrees and says there is too much wrong with the PNG project: ‘the way this first deep-sea mine proceeds will set the tone for all others, and this is a very, very bad start’. He argues investment in reusing copper and gold made more sense than continuing to pay mining companies to take bigger risks in an effort to dig up more. ‘The global economy simply does not need the gold or copper that would be recovered at these deep-sea hydrothermal vents. We know how to recycle and reuse much of the copper already up out of the ground, run through the economy, and discarded in waste dumps. It is a unidirectional waste of resources, energy and money. And we know better.’

Deep-ocean exploration leads to dangerous commercial exploitation – profit motive overcomes environmental considerations

Ruth 06 (Laura, “Gambling in the deep sea”, EMBO Reports 7:1, January 2006, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1369241/)

For decades, the depths of the oceans have fascinated researchers. The discovery of strange creatures perfectly adapted to eternal darkness, high pressure, and other unusual conditions has raised enormous interest in how life emerged on Earth and how it flourishes in such extreme environments (Fig 1). This abundance of life has also lured researchers and biotech companies to the oceans in the hope of finding unknown genes, proteins, and other compounds that could be exploited commercially. Despite the enormous costs that still pose a considerable barrier to deep-sea research and exploitation, some now worry about the negative side effects of deep-sea bioprospecting. Scientists, entrepreneurs, politicians and legal experts have begun to debate problematic issues, such as the preservation of deep-sea biodiversity, habitat protection and sharing of benefits. Their aim is to draft international regulations to prevent environmental and scientific tragedies without hampering discovery. Scientists have made—and continue to make—exciting discoveries in the depths of the oceans. In the early 1980s, Karl Stetter, a microbiologist from the University of Regensburg, Germany, discovered a hyperthermophilic archaebacterium that flourishes near submarine vents (Fig 2) at temperatures of about 100 °C (Stetter, 1982). Stetter and his colleagues described another archaebacterium in 2002, termedNanoarchaeum equitans. This organism is parasitic with an unusually small ribosomal RNA and now represents a new phylum in the bacterial world (Waters et al, 2003; Huber et al, 2002). he first six months of 2005 saw the publication of the discovery of a jellyfish that uses red fluorescent flashes to lure fish (Haddock et al, 2005) and the genome sequence of Photobacterium profundumstrain SS9 (Vezzi et al, 2005), 20 years after the microorganism was isolated from an amphipod animal living 2,500 m deep in the Philippine Sulu Sea (Yayanos, 1995). Tim Shank, a biologist at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI; Woods Hole, MA, USA), is studying a worm that lives at 80 °C in an oily tar-like pit near submarine vents. The organism lives in the presence of carcinogenic amounts of polyaromatic hydrocarbons, but does not develop cancer. According to Shank, studying the DNA-repair mechanisms of the organism may lead to new insights about cancer growth and even possible treatments. Shank's research is just one example of the potential commercial possibilities emerging from the genetic wealth in the deep sea, sometimes coined ‘blue gold'. Until now, only a few products have made it from research to market. Diversa (San Diego, CA, USA) and New England Biolabs (NEB; Ipswich, MA, USA) sell DNA polymerases isolated from deep-sea vents that offer advantages such as increased thermostability and improved proofreading capabilities for the polymerase chain reaction. Sederma (Le Perray en Yvelines, France) sells Venuceane™, a skin protection product that includes a radical-scavenging enzyme originally discovered in extremophile bacteria from the Gulf of California (Lintner et al, 2002). However, the global sales of marine biotechnology products in 2002, including anti-cancer compounds, antibiotics and antivirals, were estimated at about US$2.4 billion (BCC, 2003). Such a healthy market for products encourages companies and academics to explore the oceans further for interesting organisms. Diversa, which produces enzymes, proteins and biologically active compounds for pharmaceutical, agricultural and industrial use, maintains an active deep-sea research programme, although it is not the focus of their research, according to Leif Christoffersen, Biodiversity Product Manager at Diversa. … a healthy market for products encourages companies and academics to explore the oceans further for interesting organisms However, the lines between academia and industry are becoming increasingly blurred. Stetter, one of the world's leading experts on extremophilic archaebacteria, is a co-founder of Diversa. Craig Venter, founder of Celera Genomics, launched the Sorcerer II Expedition in Nova Scotia, Canada, in 2003, to create a genomic catalogue of marine microorganisms. The expedition, now situated off the east coast of Australia, has already shown insights into the diversity and abundance of organisms in samples from the Sargasso Sea near Bermuda (Venter et al, 2004). Melanie Wranaker, media contact at the J. Craig Venter Institute (Rockville, MD, USA), said that the research includes the study of extreme environment sites, such as hydrothermal warm seeps, hypersaline lagoons and low-oxygen environments, which may be similar to deep-sea environments and therefore useful for comparative studies. All data collected will be deposited into the public domain for researchers. The Ocean Genome Legacy (OGL) is another non-profit marine research organization that explores the abundance of life in the deep sea. Their headquarters are located in Ipswich, MA, USA, near NEB, from which the organization receives financial support. One reason why academic scientists and institutions team up with commercial partners is the high cost of deep-sea research. Few countries can afford dedicated academic deep-sea research programmes and equipment such as specialized ships and submarines (see Fig 3): namely the USA and Japan, although France, the UK and Russia also have deep-sea research capabilities. A 30-day expedition cruise costs roughly US$1 million, with an average daily operating cost of about US$30,000. Diversa, which collaborates with Deep Ocean Expeditions, estimate its annual costs to be approximately US$5–6.5 million to operate the RV Akademik Keldysh ship, owned and operated by the PP Shirshov Institute of Oceanology in Moscow, Russia. These high costs usually require academic and commercial partnerships—academic institutions have the equipment and the knowledge, and the commercial partners provide funds and other useful capabilities. Justin Manley, Lead Ocean Engineer at Mitretek Systems, a non-profit scientific research and engineering corporation (Falls Church, VA, USA), explained that alliances between the biotechnology and pharmaceutical sector with other industries, such as the oil and shipwreck salvaging businesses, might become fruitful avenues in the future. “One million dollars is a drop in the bucket compared to what oil companies spend on oil rigs,” he commented. Shank also thinks that as soon as more benefits from deep-sea research materialize, such as new chemicals, proteins and enzymes with new properties, other industries will get into the game. Although the funding is welcome, Shank noted, “We are wary of companies taking the samples and not communicating results…As a result, some academics do not provide samples to industry.” Past experience shows that this concern is valid. Although researchers discovered the Thermus aquaticus microorganism in Yellowstone National Park in 1967, the park does not benefit in any way from sales of the heat-stable Taq polymerase for polymerase chain reactions. This situation changed with the passage of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in 1992, which allows governments and organizations to negotiate contracts with scientists when they give them access to national land and water resources. According to Eric Mathur, Vice President of Scientific Affairs and Molecular Diversity at Diversa, before the passage of the CBD, academics had the freedom to patent discoveries and transfer samples to interested industrial partners. The contract between the discoverers of P. profundum and the Philippine government, which prohibits any financial gains from discoveries in the Sulu Sea, is an example of how things have changed. Still, fears remain: environmental groups sued Yellowstone National Park in August 1997 for making the first biodiversity agreement in the USA to share scientific and monetary benefits with Diversa. In a historic decision, a federal court in Washington, DC, approved this agreement between Yellowstone National Park and Diversa on April 12, 2000. In addition, the US National Park Service began conducting environmental analyses to evaluate the impacts of bioprospecting benefit-sharing agreements in US national parks. This review may represent the first nationwide study of the environmental impacts of bioprospecting benefit-sharing activities ever undertaken by any country. Critics also fear that industrial exploitation may create environmental problems similar to overfishing and mining of marine areas. According to Shank, the establishment of thermal-vent marine preserves off the coasts of Oregon and Portugal in the past two years was in part a response to such concerns. However, Barbara Moore, Director of the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Undersea Research Program (NOAA; Silver Spring, MD, USA), is less pessimistic about the environmental impact of deep-sea research. She pointed out that the combination of small samples of microorganisms, non-specific sampling techniques and high costs make deep-sea bioprospecting less of a threat to the environment. She added that sea-floor tectonics and ‘plumbing' of the vents continually change the environments and their living communities. Moore also stressed that other deep-sea ecosystems, such as cold seeps, methane hydrate seeps and deep-sea corals, also known as cold-water corals, are as important to the overall ecosystem as the deep-sea vents.

Lack of regulations means the aff’s bio-prospecting causes irreversible environmental damage

Ruth 06 (Laura, “Gambling in the deep sea”, EMBO Reports 7:1, January 2006, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1369241/)

The problem is further hampered by the fact that the open seas—and most of the world's seabed ecosystems—lie in international waters beyond national laws and unregulated by international laws. According to Salvatore Arico of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO; Paris, France), the UN began to address this problem in 1995 and started to debate international regulations, realizing that the extreme environments of the deep sea would be of academic and commercial interest, similar to the Yellowstone's geysers. Arico commented that the debate then stalled for years owing to a lack of support by some nations that actively conduct deep-sea research, most notably the USA and Japan. Eventually, in 2004, Sam Johnston, a member of the UN University Institute for Advanced Studies (UNU–IAS; Yokohama, Japan), commissioned the deep-sea genetic resources report to catalyse further policy development (Arico & Salpin, 2005). …the open seas—and most of the world's seabed ecosystems—lie in international waters beyond national laws and unregulated by international laws The report, a joint effort between Arico and Charlotte Salpin, a law and policy expert associated with UNU–IAS, makes several key recommendations. First, it emphasizes the need for further study of the “whole world down there—knowing how these ecosystems function is important for the planet”, according to Arico. Second, any international regulation should take into account that some deep-sea ecosystems are already threatened by unsustainable use. “While it is impossible to quantify the damage caused by such research on the deep seabed environment, threats include destruction of habitats, unsustainable collection, alteration of local hydrological and environmental conditions, and pollution of various nature,” the report states. “The same activities can have very different impacts in various deep sea ecosystems, and cumulative impacts over time…” Third, it should address the problem that at present, scientific research in international waters is unregulated. Johnston added that bioprospecting, to be distinguished from pure academic research, has already begun. The absence of international regulations has therefore created negative effects for academic research, most notably secretive scientific protocols, which force each expedition to start de novo. He also highlighted the difficulty that governments face when creating regulations for benefit sharing.

Pharmaceutical exploration of the ocean is dangerous – environment and indigenous issues, lack of regulation

Neill 13 (Peter, Director of the World Ocean Observatory “Ocean Bio-Prospecting”, Huffington Post, 7/12/13, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-neill/law-of-the-sea-ocean-bioprospecting_b_3575098.html)

But it is the pharmaceutical exploration that should also be of great concern. Again, there are structures in place -the Convention on Biological Diversity foremost among them. But this exploration is less physical in a way, and much more complicated, with the knowledge and value available from ocean resources located everywhere -in the length of the water column, coral reefs, deep ocean vents, and the sea floor. The issues are many: access, research costs, transaction costs, intellectual property and patent issues, regulatory structure, benefit-sharing, fairness and equity issues, and the right to traditional knowledge sustained by indigenous peoples. All the major pharmaceutical companies and research institutions are already fully engaged in the drug development and profit implications of these resources, make no mistake about it. At a conference on bioscience and the ocean, sponsored in 2012 by the New York Academy of Sciences, the extent of this research potential was apparent, with presentations on the synthesis of DNA from ocean species such as sponges and mollusks, imitating certain biological functions that could be applied to disease in humans. A significant number of new drugs in preliminary testing for cancer treatment are derived this way from the information decoded from marine plants and animals. A very recent U.S. Supreme Court decisionclarified one of the larger questions for such research: by protecting knowledge derived from the discovery of such natural processes from the exclusivity of patent protection, while nonetheless permitting "ownership" of processes invented or synthesized from them for manufacture and application as vaccines or medicines beneficial to human health. It is a profound distinction, and a major step toward protection of such ocean resources over time. It is interesting to note, however, that this U.S. judicial decision notwithstanding, the United States Congress has not approved either the UN Convention on Biological Diversity or the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, even though both are now international law, having been ratified by the requisite number of nations. Frankly, this enormous potential is as threatened by ocean acidification, the changing pH of the ocean with its impact on all macro and microscopic organisms, as it is on governance and the profit motive. All these ocean challenges add up to the same question that we have not yet answered: how do we control ourselves and our actions so that the benefits of the world ocean will be available to us for all time to come?

The aff’s bioprospecting disrupts marine ecosystems – kills biodiversity

Bioprospecting kills ocean ecosystems – foreign species, light and noise pollution

Warner 08 (Robin M., University of Wollongong, “Protecting the diversity of the depths: environmental regulation of bioprospecting and marine scientific research beyond national jurisdiction”, Ocean Yearbook 22, http://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1178&context=lawpapers)

Bioprospecting, while not as invasive as deep seabed mineral exploration, does entail physical disturbance, alteration and introduction of alien elements to deep sea habitats." Current deep sea research projects, principally on hydrothermal vent sites, have progressed beyond simple observation of the benthic fauna from manned or remotely controlled submersible vessels to actual sampling of the fauna and faunal infrastructure and installation of scientific instruments in the deep seabed environment to record experimental observations on a regular basis. As well as disturbing the physical habitat, research vessels and scientific equipment also introduce light and different noise pattems into the fragile deep sea environment and may discharge marine pollutants and alien biological material into the previously pristine environment of the deep seabed. The negative impact of frequent research expeditions on particular deep seabed sites and the potential for conflicting or incompatible research activities which duplicate adverse effects on fragile deep sea sites has also been noted by scientists and other commentators. The absence of compulsory environmental protection measures such as environmental baseline data collection, ongoing environmental impact assessment of sampling sites and impact reference zones could result in substantial loss of deep seabed biodiversity over time. Scientists involved in deep sea research have developed some voluntary protocols to reduce the negative impacts of their research on the deep seabed environment including requests to the global scientific community to consider certain deep seabed sites as scientific reserves and voluntary codes of conduct which seek to minimise adverse effects on the environment and to coordinate deep seabed research to reduce the occurrence of simultaneous expeditions to deep seabed sites and conflicting use of these sites." As bioprospecting activities are currently intermingled with marine scientific research, these initiatives have the dual purpose of reducing the adverse effects of botl1 bioprospecting and marine scientific research activities on the deep sea environment.

Unregulated bioprospecting leads to widespread exploitation – kills ecosystems and turns the case

A fourth option to consider is leaving the open access situation which currently applies to the genetic and biochemical resources of the deep seabed and to bioprospecting activities in these areas undisturbed. This option would parallel the free market conditions which applied to all high seas fisheries before the advent of the UN Fish Stocks Agreement and regional fisheries management organization involvement in the management and conservation of straddling stocks and highly migratory stocks in marine areas beyond national jurisdiction. As one commentator has observed, this may lead to some long term advantages for human kind in general as the competition engendered competitive exploitation of genetic and biochemical resources found on the deep seabed will stimulate new inventions and research techniques." On the other hand commercial investors will have little incentive to introduce costly measures for the conservation and sustainable use of genetic and biochemical resources and the protection of deep seabed biodiversity. Marine scientists and other commentators have predicted that the failure to implement environmental protection measures for deep seabed environments such as hydrothermal vents, cold seeps and seamounts risks rapid loss of species and general degradation of fragile habitats." ln addition, the primary motive for commercial invesmtent will be the maximisation of profits rather than any commitment to the fair and equitable benelit sharing of global commons resources for current and future generations. While bioprospecting activities continue to be predominantly conducted by state sponsored research institutions with the dual purpose of marine scientific research, voluntary codes of conduct introduced by deep sea scientists will afford some level of protection for the surrounding marine environment. The next section will examine the content of one of these codes. These measures are voluntary, however, and will not bind commercial operators who conduct bioprospecting activities in a private enterprise framework. Ultimately failure to address the regulation of bioprospecting activities could lead to rapid over exploitation of these valuable resources of the deep seabed and the loss of important genetic and biochemical material not yet discovered by marine scientists.

Link – International Ownership/Conflict Impact?

The aff’s bioprospecting causes international conflict – lack of regulations means no agreement over resource sharing and environmental protection

Slobodian et al. 10 (Lydia Slobodian, Rémy Kinna, Alphonse Kambu and Lara Ognibene, “BIOPROSPECTING IN THE GLOBAL COMMONS: LEGAL ISSUES BRIEF”, United Nations Environment Programme, 2010, http://www.unep.org/delc/Portals/119/Biosprecting-Issuepaper.pdf)

The most serious legal issue facing bioprospecting in the Global Commons, areas beyond national jurisdiction intemationally recognised as the shared resources of humankind, is the lack of clear rules and guidelines. Various environmental, trade, and geographically-specific agreements currently offer incomplete, ambiguous, or conflicting provisions relating to bioprospecting activities. Consequently, there are no clear rules on ownership, access, benefit-sharing, and environmental responsibility for bioprospecting in the Global Commons. Lack of clarity and distinct gaps in the existing laws encourages bioprospecting by companies keen to exploit the fragmented legal frameworks and policies for their own commerical benefit. lt also obstmcts the participation of developing States in exploration and use of the rich biological resources in areas designated as the Global Commons, such as the High Seas and the Deep Seabed. This is due to the inherent financial resources and technical capacity required for scientific research in extreme marine environments as well as for commercial development of biological materials. Hence, equitable access to and sharing of benefits fiom bioprospecting is a critical aspect of many proposed solutions to this burgeoning intemational enviromnental law issue 2. Bioprospecting: what is it, and why is it an issue? 2.1 Definition of Bioprospecting The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) Secretariat defines bioprospecting as "the exploration of biodiversity for commercially valuable genetic and biochemical resources.” However, its defmition varies in scope between countries, with some defining bioprospecting narrowly to include only the search for valuable genetic materials, whereas others encompass the development andapplication of such materials.; Hence, the commercialisation aspects of bioprospecting and potential profitablity remain the critical impasse regarding its legal definition. ln particular, where the distinction lies between Marine Scientific Research (MSR)3 and bioprospecting, as concerns any property rights arising from the intended future development of marine genetic resources discovered on scientific expeditions, is the subject of ongoing debate.

Directory: wp-content -> uploads -> 2014
2014 -> For want of a nail
2014 -> Stop Militarizing Law Enforcement Act of 2014
2014 -> Ihbb asian Championships 2014 middle school bowl Round 4 First Quarter
2014 -> Ihbb european Championships 2014 Bowl Round 4 First Quarter
2014 -> International History Bee and Bowl 2013-14 Asian Division Question Set Bowl Round Six
2014 -> United states patent and trademark office
2014 -> Coffs harbour eisteddfod vocal syllabus
2014 -> Listen News Programs Schedule pledge now
2014 -> Slow club announce third album complete surrender

Download 0.84 Mb.

Share with your friends:

1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ... 20